Looking back, I personally think Babel should've won because The Departed was simply near-perfect execution of a good Cops and Robbers movie, while Babel was an innovative picture that made a sweeping statement.
I think in general, genre pictures that are honored by the academy (My Fair Lady, Broadway Melody of 1929, Great Zigfield for musicals, Cimarron for Westerns, and French Connection for cops movies) can get dated pretty quickly. Whereas epics and films with sweeping statements or films that touch on relevant themes. There are obviously exceptions to this rule (i.e. The Godfather was the hallmark of gangster films and American in Paris, West Side Story and Sound of Music are among the best remembered musicals) but generally films that revolutionize and bend the genre like High Noon, McCabe and Mrs Miller, and The Searchers for Westerns or Singing in the Rain for musicals or Little Cesar or pretty much the entirety of film noir don't get recognized in their day and only get appreciated later in retrospect.
So in essence what I'm saying is that the genre pictures that really revolutionize the genre and find an innovative method of redefining it, generally don't get honored right then and there because it takes time to realize the brilliance of it. You need films to follow the particular trend that a revolutionary picture like High Noon is starting before you see how significant of a film it is. This is not neccessarily true: sometimes films that are innovative like West Side Story or the Godfather get honored, but these examples are rare and if a genre film wins, the academy usually will honor a film that executes the existing conventions well. The Departed is in no way revolutionary, but it is an excellent execution of a gangster film. It is also a personal triumph within the Martin Scorsesee canon, in that he was able to return to form. He was able to leave the grandiose ambitions with which he brought to the Aviator and Gangs of New York behind and buckle down to make a solid gangster film. However, the best picture award he received reflected more of a decision to avoid a director/picture split than it did a convincing vote for a best picture. While I concede it was a close race, I personally think that Babel was that epic thematically relevant film which was well-made and spoke to the problems facing the present.
Showing posts with label Best Picture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Best Picture. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Lose an oscar, win a cult following
Tonight in one of the most wide-open races in years, Oscar fans with hopes of what film will join the historic pantheon of Best Picture winners that includes "All About Eve", "Casablanca", "The Godfather", "Gone with the Wind", and "On the Waterfront". But there’s no reason to get nervous about it, because who wins Best Picture is irrelevant. Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying the Oscars are irrelevant. Every acting and directing award has been paramount to helping that person’s career flourish and the same goes for the other categories.
The nominations for Best Picture are also of the utmost importance. Three years ago, for example, six pictures were considered locks for an Oscar nomination and "Cold Mountain" found itself the odd film out. While "Cold Mountain" isn’t necessarily forgotten in history, its status as a future classic is less assured than "Master and Commander" or "Seabiscuit." The same thing happened the year before with "Far From Heaven". Ask your average person on the street if they have ever heard of "Far From Heaven" and think about how different that answer would be if it was "Best Picture Nominee Far From Heaven." The point is recent history suggests that being the perennial sixth film doesn’t bode well for your legacy. While "Dreamgirls" fans were massively disappointed at the film’s snub this year, I doubt they’ll still be making much noise three or four years from now.
But losing an Oscar in a close race, on the other hand, does wonders for your legacy. Aside from "Schindler’s List", the most loved films of the 1990’s have arguably become "Pulp Fiction", "Shawshank Redemption", "Saving Private Ryan", "Fargo", and "Goodfellas", all losers in close races. The winning pictures of "Forrest Gump", "Dances with Wolves", "The English Patient", and "Shakespeare in Love" get the actual award and a place in the history books, but the losers get a contingent of loyal supporters who will protest the merits of those films and who they thought was the rightful winner for years to come. How many message board threads or articles have you read on the topic? “Greatest injustices the academy has made” and counted the victories of "Forrest Gump" and "Dances with Wolves." Little by little, each of those threads, posts, and articles helps that picture get more action on the DVD shelves at local video stores.
The overkill on this subject comes from everyone from Richard Roeper to the guys posting on the IMDB and OscarWatch message boards. My theory is that it comes from a sense of pride you might have as a self-proclaimed film buff. That losing picture, whether Goodfellas or Shawshank, represents you and your tastes and not only can you take pride in promoting a film as one of your favorites that’s a good film, but you can also take pride in personally promoting a film that the high-and-mighty Academy got wrong. You can go around saying, “Schindler’s List is such a great movie, you’ve gotta see it!” but everyone knows that. Identifying yourself as a fan of these also-rans becomes a calling card of sorts for film snobs who wish to proclaim their tastes superior to that of the mainstream.
With the increase of the prominence of the blogosphere and Oscar sites, it seems only likely that this backlash against a best picture win will grow stronger as evidenced by last year’s win. How many hits are there on a simple Google search for “Brokeback Mountain” and “Crash” proclaiming the Oscar injustice there.
Perhaps, people are forgetting that the films that won aren’t necessarily unworthy films in their own right. For example, back in 1994, "Forrest Gump" had both critics entranced and moviegoers all over America buzzing. It didn’t even finish #1 on its opening weekend at the box office (True Lies did) but through good word-of-mouth it became the highest grossing film of the year and the 4th highest to date. It also won at the WGAs, the DGAs, was nominated at the BAFTAs (where it lost to Four Weddings and a Funeral) and won the National Board of Review’s prize.
Roger Ebert gave it four stars and wrote, “I've never seen a movie quite like ‘Forrest Gump.’ Any attempt to describe him will risk making the movie seem more conventional than it is.” Rolling Stone called it, “A movie heartbreaker of startling wit and grace,” and gave it 3 ½ stars which was the same rating he gave to Pulp Fiction and Shawshank Redemption. A look back to reviews originally written in 1994 on rottentomatoes.com, shows that with the exception of the New York Times’ Stephen Holden, most of the reviews were highly favorable. Many of the ones that gave poor reviews were only written years later in retrospect. Christopher Null of Filmcritic.com wrote, “Run, Forrest, run! It sure seemed great at the time, but Gump is aging, and it's starting to show a wrinkle or too….. what a crazy chain of events Forrest Gump has spawned: a poorly-received book sequel, a restaurant chain, and hordes of imitators -- not to mention a critical backlash.”
My theory for the backlash would be that Forrest Gump was a bittersweet emotional ride that resonated with a certain generation at a certain point in time. It’s not something that holds up well to repeat viewings. Pulp Fiction, in contrast, is a revisionist genre film that can be watched over and over again by film students interested in dissecting its film conventions. The same can also be said for neo-noir films Fargo and LA Confidential, which were also best picture losers. "Dances with Wolves", similarly is an emotional epic that swept many viewers away on first viewing and was the first Western with a fighting chance of being honored since "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" (the only previous Western to actually win the award was the 1931 film "Cimarron").
As for Shawshank, Tim Dirks at Filmsite.org summarizes its predicament best: “Only through positive word-of-mouth (following cable TV and broadcast airings, and then video releases) did the film do well - although its original reception at the box-office was lukewarm.” Shawshank didn’t even get voted into AFI’s Top 100 Films, but when the Institute rereleases their Top 100 list later this year, rest assured that revisionist history will give Shawshank a place (both the winner Forrest Gump and other runner-up from that year Pulp Fiction are on that list). But as with "Dances with Wolves" and "The English Patient" (I won't say "Shakespeare in Love" was exactly deserving), people fail to acknowledge that at the time those were the most popular films of their year and only through a revisionist tide do those facts get lost. That tide is a powerful one, so let that be a consolation to you if your picture loses tonight.
The nominations for Best Picture are also of the utmost importance. Three years ago, for example, six pictures were considered locks for an Oscar nomination and "Cold Mountain" found itself the odd film out. While "Cold Mountain" isn’t necessarily forgotten in history, its status as a future classic is less assured than "Master and Commander" or "Seabiscuit." The same thing happened the year before with "Far From Heaven". Ask your average person on the street if they have ever heard of "Far From Heaven" and think about how different that answer would be if it was "Best Picture Nominee Far From Heaven." The point is recent history suggests that being the perennial sixth film doesn’t bode well for your legacy. While "Dreamgirls" fans were massively disappointed at the film’s snub this year, I doubt they’ll still be making much noise three or four years from now.
But losing an Oscar in a close race, on the other hand, does wonders for your legacy. Aside from "Schindler’s List", the most loved films of the 1990’s have arguably become "Pulp Fiction", "Shawshank Redemption", "Saving Private Ryan", "Fargo", and "Goodfellas", all losers in close races. The winning pictures of "Forrest Gump", "Dances with Wolves", "The English Patient", and "Shakespeare in Love" get the actual award and a place in the history books, but the losers get a contingent of loyal supporters who will protest the merits of those films and who they thought was the rightful winner for years to come. How many message board threads or articles have you read on the topic? “Greatest injustices the academy has made” and counted the victories of "Forrest Gump" and "Dances with Wolves." Little by little, each of those threads, posts, and articles helps that picture get more action on the DVD shelves at local video stores.
The overkill on this subject comes from everyone from Richard Roeper to the guys posting on the IMDB and OscarWatch message boards. My theory is that it comes from a sense of pride you might have as a self-proclaimed film buff. That losing picture, whether Goodfellas or Shawshank, represents you and your tastes and not only can you take pride in promoting a film as one of your favorites that’s a good film, but you can also take pride in personally promoting a film that the high-and-mighty Academy got wrong. You can go around saying, “Schindler’s List is such a great movie, you’ve gotta see it!” but everyone knows that. Identifying yourself as a fan of these also-rans becomes a calling card of sorts for film snobs who wish to proclaim their tastes superior to that of the mainstream.
With the increase of the prominence of the blogosphere and Oscar sites, it seems only likely that this backlash against a best picture win will grow stronger as evidenced by last year’s win. How many hits are there on a simple Google search for “Brokeback Mountain” and “Crash” proclaiming the Oscar injustice there.
Perhaps, people are forgetting that the films that won aren’t necessarily unworthy films in their own right. For example, back in 1994, "Forrest Gump" had both critics entranced and moviegoers all over America buzzing. It didn’t even finish #1 on its opening weekend at the box office (True Lies did) but through good word-of-mouth it became the highest grossing film of the year and the 4th highest to date. It also won at the WGAs, the DGAs, was nominated at the BAFTAs (where it lost to Four Weddings and a Funeral) and won the National Board of Review’s prize.
Roger Ebert gave it four stars and wrote, “I've never seen a movie quite like ‘Forrest Gump.’ Any attempt to describe him will risk making the movie seem more conventional than it is.” Rolling Stone called it, “A movie heartbreaker of startling wit and grace,” and gave it 3 ½ stars which was the same rating he gave to Pulp Fiction and Shawshank Redemption. A look back to reviews originally written in 1994 on rottentomatoes.com, shows that with the exception of the New York Times’ Stephen Holden, most of the reviews were highly favorable. Many of the ones that gave poor reviews were only written years later in retrospect. Christopher Null of Filmcritic.com wrote, “Run, Forrest, run! It sure seemed great at the time, but Gump is aging, and it's starting to show a wrinkle or too….. what a crazy chain of events Forrest Gump has spawned: a poorly-received book sequel, a restaurant chain, and hordes of imitators -- not to mention a critical backlash.”
My theory for the backlash would be that Forrest Gump was a bittersweet emotional ride that resonated with a certain generation at a certain point in time. It’s not something that holds up well to repeat viewings. Pulp Fiction, in contrast, is a revisionist genre film that can be watched over and over again by film students interested in dissecting its film conventions. The same can also be said for neo-noir films Fargo and LA Confidential, which were also best picture losers. "Dances with Wolves", similarly is an emotional epic that swept many viewers away on first viewing and was the first Western with a fighting chance of being honored since "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" (the only previous Western to actually win the award was the 1931 film "Cimarron").
As for Shawshank, Tim Dirks at Filmsite.org summarizes its predicament best: “Only through positive word-of-mouth (following cable TV and broadcast airings, and then video releases) did the film do well - although its original reception at the box-office was lukewarm.” Shawshank didn’t even get voted into AFI’s Top 100 Films, but when the Institute rereleases their Top 100 list later this year, rest assured that revisionist history will give Shawshank a place (both the winner Forrest Gump and other runner-up from that year Pulp Fiction are on that list). But as with "Dances with Wolves" and "The English Patient" (I won't say "Shakespeare in Love" was exactly deserving), people fail to acknowledge that at the time those were the most popular films of their year and only through a revisionist tide do those facts get lost. That tide is a powerful one, so let that be a consolation to you if your picture loses tonight.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Actors in 2 or more best picture oscar winners:
This is a list of actors who have appeared in 2 or more best picture oscar winners.
Things we can learn from this list:
-If you judge actors and actresses by this criteria, it boosts the status of Clark Gable and Dustin Hoffman, the only 2 actors to earn play a leading role in leading three seperate pictures to best picture oscars. Hoffman and Gable each got a best actor nomination in each of those 3 pictures that they led to an oscar which are Rain Man, Kramer vs Kramer and Midnight Cowboy for Hoffman and Mutiny on the Bounty, Gone with the Wind, and It Happened one Night for Gable.
-Gable had less competition, in the sense that in the 1930s, I don't believe many of the stars that we associate with the Golden Age really were up and rolling with their careers. Jimmy Stewart had little outside Frank Capra's pictures, John Wayne wasn't a hit until Stagecoach, and Humphrey Bogart had more hits in the 40's, I believe. I think the same goes for Henry Fonda. Gary Cooper and Clark Gable were the two biggest leading men in the '30s and Gable brought enormous revenue to whatever projects he chose. I think that Gone with the Wind might have done so well, because of Clark Gable
-Morgan Freeman, Dianne Keaton and Meryl Streep get kudos for lead or supporting roles during each of those three pictures
-This list indicates that in the oscars there really aren't any dynasties, as in a certain kind of picture wins year after year. Even if actors might not be as steadfast to a certian type of genre as directors are, you'd think that if for example, gangster films were the ones that won all the time, that Robert De Niro or Al Pacino would win over and over. If you looked at directors, like Frank Capra, who's been honored a LOT of times by the academy with 5 best picture noms and 3 directing oscars (2 best picture winners), or John Ford, who's won 4 oscars (but only one of those was for a best picture winner), you'd find that even their type of genre doesn't win every time it's up. So no one really is ever on a roll, from an actor's perspective in leading a picture to win every time.
-Finally, we can also conclude, that this list doesn't neccessarily mean much. It could be dumb luck that you found yourself in 2 or 3 best picture nominees, especially since Around the World in 80 Days cast a lot of people like Shirley MacLaine and Peter Lorre as extras
How I did this:
It's not that long of a list, nor are there any that I could find who had appeared in over 3 films. It actually was somewhat simple to look this up. I went to the imdb.com's section on best oscar winners and clicked on every one. When that happens the links sort of change color to indicate that it's a link to a film that you've already seen, and then i started clicking on names under the best picture winners and scrolling down to see how many colored links they had. I didn't click on every extra and side player so there might have been someone who have been in 4 films, for all I know
John Gielgud 3 (Around the World in 80 Days, Ben Hur, Chariots of Fire)
Hugh Griffith 3 (Tom Jones, Ben Hur, Oliver)
Ward Bond 3 (Gone with the Wind, It Happened One Night, You Can't Take it With You)
(all as an extra....this guy has actually appeared in 11 oscar nominated films, more than anyone including Jack Nicholson, Dustin Hoffman, Gary Cooper, and Henry Fonda)
Donald Crisp 2 (Life of Emile Zola, How Green was my Valley)
Clark Gable 3 (Gone with the Wind, It Happened One Night, Mutiny on the Bounty)
Dustin Hoffman-3 (Rain Man, Kramer vs Kramer, Midnight Cowboy)
Meryl Streep-3 (Deer Hunter, Out of Africa, Kramer vs Kramer)
Dianne Keaton-3 (Godfather, Godfather II, Annie Hall)
Morgan Freeman-3 (Unforgiven, Driving Miss Daisy, and Million Dollar Baby)
Shirley MacLaine-3 (Around the World in 80 Days, The Apartment, Terms of Endearment)
Gene Hackman-2 (Unforgiven, French Connection)
Richard Harris-2 (Unforgiven and Gladiator)
George Saunders-2 (All About Eve and Rebecca)
Jack Hawkins-2 (Ben Hur and Bridge ont he River Kwai)
Claude Rains 2 (Lawrnece of Arabia and Casablanvx)
Anthony Quayle 2(Hamlet and Lawrence of Arabia)
Al Pacino 2 (Godfather and Godfather II)
Marlon Brando-2 (On the Waterfront, Godfather)
Peter Lorre-2 (Casablanca, Around the World in 80 Days)
Clint Eastwood-2 (Unforgiven and Million Dollar Baby)
Karl Malden 2 (Patton and On the Waterfront)
Rob Duvall 2 (Godfather, Godfather II)
Russell Crowe-2 (Beautiful Mind and Gladiator)
Jack Nicholson 2 (One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest and Terms of Endearment)
Lawrence Olivier 2 (Hamlet, Rebecca)
Christopher Walken 2 (Deer Hunter and Annie Hall)
Peter O’Toole 2 (Last Emperor and Lawrence of Arabia)
Gladys Cooper 2 (My Fair Lady and Rebecca)
Rod Steiger 2 (On the Waterfront and In the Heat of the Night)
Cathy O’Donnell 2 (Best Years of Our Lives and Ben Hur)
Leslie Caron 2 (Gigi and American in Paris)
Ernest Borgnine 2 (From Here to Eternity and Marty)
Ian Holm 2 (LOTR: Return of the King and Chariots of Fire)
Nigel Davenport 2 (Chariots of Fire, Man for All Seasons)
Evelyn Keys 2 (Around the World in 80 Days, Gone with the Wind)
Melville Cooper 2 (Around the World in 80 Days, Rebecca)
Things we can learn from this list:
-If you judge actors and actresses by this criteria, it boosts the status of Clark Gable and Dustin Hoffman, the only 2 actors to earn play a leading role in leading three seperate pictures to best picture oscars. Hoffman and Gable each got a best actor nomination in each of those 3 pictures that they led to an oscar which are Rain Man, Kramer vs Kramer and Midnight Cowboy for Hoffman and Mutiny on the Bounty, Gone with the Wind, and It Happened one Night for Gable.
-Gable had less competition, in the sense that in the 1930s, I don't believe many of the stars that we associate with the Golden Age really were up and rolling with their careers. Jimmy Stewart had little outside Frank Capra's pictures, John Wayne wasn't a hit until Stagecoach, and Humphrey Bogart had more hits in the 40's, I believe. I think the same goes for Henry Fonda. Gary Cooper and Clark Gable were the two biggest leading men in the '30s and Gable brought enormous revenue to whatever projects he chose. I think that Gone with the Wind might have done so well, because of Clark Gable
-Morgan Freeman, Dianne Keaton and Meryl Streep get kudos for lead or supporting roles during each of those three pictures
-This list indicates that in the oscars there really aren't any dynasties, as in a certain kind of picture wins year after year. Even if actors might not be as steadfast to a certian type of genre as directors are, you'd think that if for example, gangster films were the ones that won all the time, that Robert De Niro or Al Pacino would win over and over. If you looked at directors, like Frank Capra, who's been honored a LOT of times by the academy with 5 best picture noms and 3 directing oscars (2 best picture winners), or John Ford, who's won 4 oscars (but only one of those was for a best picture winner), you'd find that even their type of genre doesn't win every time it's up. So no one really is ever on a roll, from an actor's perspective in leading a picture to win every time.
-Finally, we can also conclude, that this list doesn't neccessarily mean much. It could be dumb luck that you found yourself in 2 or 3 best picture nominees, especially since Around the World in 80 Days cast a lot of people like Shirley MacLaine and Peter Lorre as extras
How I did this:
It's not that long of a list, nor are there any that I could find who had appeared in over 3 films. It actually was somewhat simple to look this up. I went to the imdb.com's section on best oscar winners and clicked on every one. When that happens the links sort of change color to indicate that it's a link to a film that you've already seen, and then i started clicking on names under the best picture winners and scrolling down to see how many colored links they had. I didn't click on every extra and side player so there might have been someone who have been in 4 films, for all I know
John Gielgud 3 (Around the World in 80 Days, Ben Hur, Chariots of Fire)
Hugh Griffith 3 (Tom Jones, Ben Hur, Oliver)
Ward Bond 3 (Gone with the Wind, It Happened One Night, You Can't Take it With You)
(all as an extra....this guy has actually appeared in 11 oscar nominated films, more than anyone including Jack Nicholson, Dustin Hoffman, Gary Cooper, and Henry Fonda)
Donald Crisp 2 (Life of Emile Zola, How Green was my Valley)
Clark Gable 3 (Gone with the Wind, It Happened One Night, Mutiny on the Bounty)
Dustin Hoffman-3 (Rain Man, Kramer vs Kramer, Midnight Cowboy)
Meryl Streep-3 (Deer Hunter, Out of Africa, Kramer vs Kramer)
Dianne Keaton-3 (Godfather, Godfather II, Annie Hall)
Morgan Freeman-3 (Unforgiven, Driving Miss Daisy, and Million Dollar Baby)
Shirley MacLaine-3 (Around the World in 80 Days, The Apartment, Terms of Endearment)
Gene Hackman-2 (Unforgiven, French Connection)
Richard Harris-2 (Unforgiven and Gladiator)
George Saunders-2 (All About Eve and Rebecca)
Jack Hawkins-2 (Ben Hur and Bridge ont he River Kwai)
Claude Rains 2 (Lawrnece of Arabia and Casablanvx)
Anthony Quayle 2(Hamlet and Lawrence of Arabia)
Al Pacino 2 (Godfather and Godfather II)
Marlon Brando-2 (On the Waterfront, Godfather)
Peter Lorre-2 (Casablanca, Around the World in 80 Days)
Clint Eastwood-2 (Unforgiven and Million Dollar Baby)
Karl Malden 2 (Patton and On the Waterfront)
Rob Duvall 2 (Godfather, Godfather II)
Russell Crowe-2 (Beautiful Mind and Gladiator)
Jack Nicholson 2 (One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest and Terms of Endearment)
Lawrence Olivier 2 (Hamlet, Rebecca)
Christopher Walken 2 (Deer Hunter and Annie Hall)
Peter O’Toole 2 (Last Emperor and Lawrence of Arabia)
Gladys Cooper 2 (My Fair Lady and Rebecca)
Rod Steiger 2 (On the Waterfront and In the Heat of the Night)
Cathy O’Donnell 2 (Best Years of Our Lives and Ben Hur)
Leslie Caron 2 (Gigi and American in Paris)
Ernest Borgnine 2 (From Here to Eternity and Marty)
Ian Holm 2 (LOTR: Return of the King and Chariots of Fire)
Nigel Davenport 2 (Chariots of Fire, Man for All Seasons)
Evelyn Keys 2 (Around the World in 80 Days, Gone with the Wind)
Melville Cooper 2 (Around the World in 80 Days, Rebecca)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)